There is a new website which supports the break away group of priests of the SSPX. Just as the SSPX, the SSPX Strict Observance assumes that salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II (UR) is visible to us, it is physically explicit for us and so it is an an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. SSPX-SO calls it one of the Eight Massive Heresies (1) of Vatican Council II and the text can be accessed on the front page of their website Operation Survival (2).

It says:

Unitatis redintegratio (# 3):

"It follows that these separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation whose efficacy comes from that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church."[

This is one of Vatican II's worst heresies. It is a total rejection of the dogma outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. SSPX-SO makes the same mistake as the SSPX: it assumes implicit-for-us salvation is explicit and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. When it is said 'For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation ' Vatican Council II is not saying that these cases are visible to us. Unitatis Reintigratio in its text has not stated that these cases are physically explicit for us. Neither has it said that these cases are 'a total rejection of the dogma on salvation'.

This is all implied by the SSPX and SSPX-SO.

There can be non Catholics saved in other religions and they would not be known to us.Since salvation is only known to God in Heaven. So these are invisible cases. Since they are invisible cases for us humans how can they be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nula salus ?

So when the SSPX uses the false premise of being able to see the dead now saved in Heaven and who are visible on earth, then the Council emerges modernist. Otherwise Unitatis Redintigratio does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

As Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said that there could be a Hindu saved in Tibet. We would not know who this Hindu is and so it is irrelvant to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.-Lionel Andrades

"It follows that these separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation whose efficacy comes from that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church."

The above statement from Vatican II is wholly orthodox, and is a case which can be fully observable to us. While "baptism of desire" is not observable to us, sacramental Baptism outside the canonical boundaries of the Catholic Church is observable to us. Consider the following scenario:

1) An infant is sacramentally baptized in a Lutheran church, and the Lutheran minister uses correct matter, form, and intent as defined by the Catholic Church.

2) A week later that infant is killed in a car crash.

Does such an infant go to Heaven? Yes, absolutely, no question about it. Is such an event "significant and important"? Yes, absolutely, not the infant's death, of course, but the fact that he/she went to Heaven. Did such an event occur outside the Catholic Church? Yes and no. The infant, in virtue of his/her Baptism, ended his life "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church," but the infant lacked canonical standing in the Catholic Church due to the fact that he/she was baptized "outside" the Catholic Church, hence, such an infant could not receive a Mass of Christian Burial.